I hope my doctor would "believe" in science!, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news6847.html

I'm sure that's been debunked on here before.

NO - it has not been debunked.

This is the whole probelm with evolutionists - they have tainted the textbooks with their false teachings.
Evoloutionists of old used to put diagrams and fake photos in text books to show what they 'think' things would or should look like.

Problem is, some of this crapola is still in the textbooks. The evolutionists say that it's no big deal. And you want us to believe this nonsense? Garbage.

Child in the womb

Evolutionists teach that human children in the womb have "gill slits". They fondly say, "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny." Impressive words, but still a lie. I met a student in graduate school in 2000 or 2001 who still believed the "gill slits" hoax was true science. Evolution is a pernicious lie.

Scinece

Fellowship Online - Haeckel’s Fake Drawings

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. (I Timothy 6:20-21)

The Holy BibleHow to be SavedCreation Proof

The problem with that photo is they do the wrong "same stage" there. One is done at the same stage of development (meaning, if it's a 9-month gestation, it's taken at the 3 month stage, and if it's a 12-month gestation, it's taken at the four-month stage, so as to always be at 1/3 gestation - just as an example). And the other is done at the same period of TIME, meaning if it's a 12-month gestation, they do it at 2 months. If it's a 9-month gestation, they do it at 2 months. If it's a 4-year gestation, they do it at 2 months.

It's deliberately misleading.

In other words, a lie.

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

And as usual, Jerry cherry-picks his definitions. Here is the full definition list for dumb from webster.com. Funny how his “2” definition is not here. So which Webster’s dictionary did you get it from?

So you see, intelligence is a valid subject when it comes to the use of the word dumb.

Essentially the same definition is listed as #1 a in your quote which cites the term "dumb animals". My quote is from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, copyright 1989. Definition #2 in that source is the definition which cites the well-known expression "dumb animal". Again, the quality of "dumbness" in the term "dumb animal" is not related to the intelligence of the animal, only to its lack of the power of speech.

I think the only reason people think of themselves as animals in the first place is because of the pernicious effect of Evolutionist propaganda. The Bible makes it clear that human beings are made of different flesh than that of beasts, birds or fish. I also believe that things are not true simply because they are recorded in the Bible, but that they are in the Bible because they are true and verifiable by real science.

All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. (I Corinthians 15:39)

The Holy BibleHow to be SavedCreation Proof

Umm... WRONG.

And you say it's verifiable by real science. Show us.

Not at all. Referring to a person in general as an animal is perceived by most to be an insult indicating a lack of being civilized or being savage and wild. Evolution does not even enter into the matter. Dumb, also viewed by the common use of the times, is more often used in reference to intellect while in reference to speech is a more arcane use of the term. But, if you must play word games or be pedantic when called to task, that is your choice.

Hence why that is yet another claim that points to the nonsensical and unrealistic claims made by the bible that have resulted in its relegation to a book of myth.

So, if they are so verifiable, then verify them. Most xians just rely upon the circular logic theist must engage in for the support of their particular superstition.

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

That is true any time you contemplate the magnitude of nothing because nothing has no magnitude.

Grumpy

The probability of Evolution being true, by the proof of it given to me in college, is at least 12,000,000 magnitudes (powers of ten) smaller than the smallest measurable scale, below which threshold science cannot measure the difference between something and nothing.

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. (I Corinthians 1:26-31)

The Holy BibleHow to be SavedCreation Proof

Umm... WRONG.

And you say it's verifiable by real science. Show us.

Tissue rejection.

Umm... WRONG.

And you say it's verifiable by real science. Show us.

Tissue rejection.

You’re joking right? Using this logic, then your god made several groups of humans of different flesh than each other due to the same tissue rejection, not to mention blood rejection.

Umm... WRONG.

And you say it's verifiable by real science. Show us.

Tissue rejection.

That's not proof of anything. Actually, men have lived with baboon hearts inside their chests, and at the same time, humans have "rejected" tissue from other humans after transplant.

Are you really this devoid of logic and knowledge?

Looks like you made another mistake:

That clears that up.

Grumpy

You're very lazy, you know ... took me all of two minutes to find that by looking up "Haeckel".

Jerry

Then I would call up that college and demand my money back because the fact that evolution occured can only be doubted by those ignorant of the evidence. Trying to apply probability to living systems requires a very extensive knowledge of all the conditions relavant to that living system, a condition rarely met. Without that extensive knowledge you get garbage in garbage out GIGO. Your 12,000,000 magnitudes number is an example of that garbage.

Grumpy

Jerry, it is highly likely that the 'proof' you saw is very wrong, and wrong because it used each sequence of whatever it studied (probably DNA) as an independent event. This is not so. Amok posted a great page that explains why this is incorrect. Yuo can either look that up, or when I get on my home computer where I bookmarked that page I will repost it for you to examine.

Looks like you made another mistake:

That clears that up.

Grumpy

You're very lazy, you know ... took me all of two minutes to find that by looking up "Haeckel".

Excuse me - but did you even read what you posted?

I mentioned nothing of gills I was more referring to the TAIL! And c'mon, could you even with all that godly wisdom tell the difference between a rabbit embryo and a human?
I doubt it.